On Spiritualizing "Stricter Separation From the World"

I received the following excellent comments from a friend and diocesan hermit about something I wrote on "stricter separation from the world." They have been edited to make them more general in application, but raise a very good point on which I have been apparently unclear. I want to try to remedy that in this post.

[[Regarding “greater separation from the world”, I’ve read on your blog about separation from what isn’t Christ-like, was that it? More a spiritual separation/renunciation from whatever is worldly. I still believe that physical separation is essential because interpretations can lead to [a] situation [where one really isn't a hermit at all]. [In an apostolic sister's life] . . . she prays and serves God. What could be considered unworldly about that? . . . Emphasizing physical separation and restricted social contact [is necessary to understand the eremitical life]. I think we need to be careful about spiritualizing the separation. It’s also a practical, physical separation which is a sacrifice in relation to apostolate, work and visits.]]

First of all, let me say I agree completely with your comments. It was not my intention to spiritualize the essential element in Canon 603 which requires "stricter separation from the world." However, I did want to indicate that this element has a primarily spiritual sense even for canonists, and thus too for Canon 603. I see this as a different matter than spiritualizing the term. In that context, "the world" is defined as "that which is not redeemed or open to the salvific action of Christ" (cf A Handbook on Canons 573-746, "Norms. . ." O'Hara, p 33) and I would add that it is also, "that which promises fulfillment or completion apart from him."   In particular, the first problem I was trying to confront which created the context for some of my posts, was the situation involving a person who simply closes the hermitage door on everything outside this place and concludes that they have thus achieved stricter separation from the world. This is theologically and spiritually naive at best, and simply dishonest and even sacrilegious at worst. What is far more likely in such a situation is that the would-be hermit has shut the world securely in with her while the hermitage has become an outpost of "the world" of illusions, falsehood, and distortion in the process.

After all, in the act of closing the "hermitage" door in this specific way, one leaves one's own heart unchanged (and, as long as one embraces this perspective, unchangeable) to the extent she embraces falsehood in a foundational way! But the heart is precisely the first thing which requires attention. In its divisions, distortions, woundedness, and enmeshment, it is not only an instance of "the world," it is the source of all the rest of the distortion and illusion which represents "the world" more generally. In my view stricter separation from the world, then, is a way of speaking first of all about conversion of heart and the freedom from enmeshment in the the structures, behaviors, values, distorted relationships, etc, of reality which is resistant to Christ. It is a goal of eremitical life more than it is a means to that, though it will also necessarily include the means to that goal.

In monastic life this goal is usually referred to as conversatio morum --- a continuing conversion of self where one's heart is made whole and undivided and one's whole self is therefore made true and holy. I think this is truly the heart of the element of SSW referred to in the Canon. But, as just noted, SSW will also include and require the hermit to embrace the means to this goal. How could she not? One cannot allow oneself to be wholly embraced by God and embrace him in return if one cannot even hear his voice clearly. Far less can one do so if one is seduced by and entangled in other realities and will not or cannot let go of those. Neither (more about this in another post) can one see reality clearly for its essential goodness and potential, nor address it in a prophetic way if one is wholly enmeshed in it. One MUST step apart physically as well. Just as physical solitude is necessary to achieve the eremitical goal of the silence OF solitude, so too does the achievement of purity of heart and authentic humanity require physical separation from the ambiguities, distortions, and untruths of reality more generally. (This will mean physical separation even from much of what is good and holy as well. Partly this is a function of the ambiguity of reality; partly it is because the hermit witnesses to the priority of the reality and relationship which is the source and ground of every other reality and relationship, the One thing necessary, namely, God alone.)

But at the same time, just as we know that physical solitude per se is NOT the true goal of the Canon nor of eremitical life, neither is physical separation the goal or primary meaning of the term "stricter separation from the world." The problem on one hand is not to mistake the means (physical separation) for the goal (personal conversion and healing) nor on the other hand, as you say so well, to believe one can reach one's goal (personal conversion and union with God) by jettisoning essential means (physical separation). In the first instance the "hermitage" might well simply be the isolated residence of the unconverted misanthrope or failure at life --- and we know if it is to be worthy of the name "hermitage" it must not be this! In the second instance, we will find people completely immersed in the activities, relationships, structures, and rhythms of the world who simply call themselves "hermits". They will empty the terms hermitage and hermit of meaning because while they live a different kind of spirituality in the midst of everyday reality, they may merely consider the term eremitical "a metaphor for (their) lives" rather than a literal state and vocation to be lived out.

There were a couple of related problems I was also dealing with in regard to authentic versus false eremitical life in the posts which gave the impression I was spiritualizing stricter separation from the world and I will bring those up in another post. In the meantime I am very grateful for the comments which provided this opportunity to clarify my earlier remarks, and more importantly, the nature of eremitical separation from the world.

Should Christians generally "Try to blend in?" How about hermits?

[[Dear Sister, a blogger wrote about a passage from the Office of Readings recently from a letter to Diognetus. In applying what s/he read, s/he said, [[And others, including [name], have pondered the externals in our lives in Christ. What is written approximately 18 centuries ago, seems sound. It runs counter to the ways of some in our time who dress as religious of the past several centuries, or who live their lives being noticed and in opposition to the life and culture of their environment.

This reading promotes invaluable reflection. By blending in, and the religious life remaining hidden, we give Christ the glory of His due by being Christians living in the world, yet not of it. Is this another way of describing the life of the temporal Catholic world, the visible Church, the social Church, the noticed and distinctively unusual lives--outlandish, if truthful--of some religious solitaries and groups? We may then place this externally-noticed way beside the option of remaining in Christ in the mystery of His life among us and of us subsumed in His life: the mystical Catholic world, the interior Church, the spiritual world.]] (emphasis added) I wonder if you agree with this reading of the passage? Should Christians "Blend in"? How about hermits or solitaries?]]

I suppose the main problem I see with this analysis is that the Letter to Diognetus (at least the passage from the Office of Readings from about a month ago,@ p 840 of the Easter Season breviary) says nothing about Christians blending in, but rather is concerned with the exceptional and pervasive ways Christians stand out despite their normality. While the author makes clear that it is true they do not stand out because of what they wear for everyday things, or what they eat, or because they flout civil laws, fall into ecstasies in the midst of communal celebrations, or buy into a spirituality that is so other-worldly they cannot work for their livelihoods, it is also true that at every turn they are distinguished by the extraordinariness of their lives. They marry and have children, but they protect and honor those children; they do not expose them to the elements or to wild animals and therefore to death when they are unwanted or sickly. They love all men, with a preference for the weak and poor but are universally persecuted, etc. This too is something the author makes very clear.

Remaining in Christ and living in the world means that one will be noticed in one way and another --- at least it means that in "the world" which is essentially contrary and resistant to Christ. It is not necessarily contrary to [[...the option of remaining in Christ in the mystery of His life among us and of us subsumed in His life.]] This is so because life in Christ does not necessarily mean "hidden," nor does it mean working to blend in. Especially it does not mean buying wholeheartedly into one's culture, or refusing to be counter cultural! Emphatically not !!! (If one's culture is basically contrary and resistant to Christ then one has to be counter cultural in significant ways.) But the reason one is noticed, is not due to externals pointing to a disordered or fanatical life. Christianity is eccentric in the technical ("out of the center") sense of the word, not in the common sense of being crazy or bizarre. The author to the letter to Diognetus is concerned with establishing first of all how very normal in every way Christian life is, and for that reason how truly inexplicable the hatred with which Christians are met at every turn. He is absolutely not concerned with arguing that Christians should "blend in" so they are completely indistinguishable from anyone else.

The Paradox the Author is Dealing With

Instead, he wants people to know that Christians are good, even exemplary citizens with a higher moral code than many, and that they serve much as a soul to a body in their presence within their societies. At the same time the author says no one can explain the hatred experienced from both Jews and Greeks (i.e., every non-Christian), he points out that there is a clear reason for the hatred Christians experience; namely, Christians serve to judge the world and its disorder by placing restrictions on its activities just as the soul places a restriction on the body's pleasures. They are very much contrary to aspects of the dominant culture. Thus, the author of the letter is walking the fine line of paradox and indicating that precisely where Christians live completely normal, loving lives, they also live the most exceptional and provocative lives. They are like the soul in the body or like leaven in a loaf of bread, and to some extent they will be indistinguishable, but at the same time, they will stand out because their presence imparts a character to the whole which is undoubted and undeniable. The Christian's religious life is hidden (in the sense that s/he does not ordinarily stand on street corners praying in public, etc,) but it is also supremely perceptible in the way s/he lives.

The General Truth Today

In today's world it remains the case that Christians should be the soul of the body, that we should be primarily distinguishable because of God's love of us, and our love for God and one another. We must remain in Christ precisely so we serve as yeast for the dough, light in the darkness, salt or savor in the food of life, and so forth. This "being in the world but not of it" is the very essence of the lay vocation. But within Christianity, there are specific vocations which are defined even more intensely in terms of their counter cultural nature. The solitary or eremitical vocations the blogger refers to are among these, and these lives, unlike the lay vocation, are characterized precisely by their stricter separation from the world. They are meant to be counter cultural in almost every way I can think of. Is this unusual? Yes, and it is meant to be. Is it noticed? Yes --- even when hermits are unavailable to speak about their lives, this vocation is noticed in a general way.

Hermits live lives of essential hiddenness and stricter separation from the world in part so they may address the world in the same way prophets of old addressed their cultures and world --- to call these to their truest reality, to challenge them to conversion and fulfillment in Christ. A conscious (or self-conscious!) attempt to blend in, which seems to me to include something other than an honest or transparent living out of one's Christianity in the normal incarnational way life in Christ dictates, is very far from such a vocation. Understanding, empathy, compassion, and prophetic presence which are rooted in the Hermit's honest and loving solidarity with the humanity and situation of others are another matter. The hermit must be a convincing example of the latter without falling into the disingenuousness of the former. When Paul spoke of becoming all things to all people, for instance, I think this is what he was speaking of.

Solidarity and Christ-consciousness versus Estrangement and Self-Consciousness

What I am trying to say is there is a vast difference between fitting in because in one's basic Christianity one knows on a deep level how very like every other person one is, and therefore, truly belonging in any circumstance or set of circumstances, and trying to "blend in." The first is motivated by humility and carried along by one's genuine love of others. The second is too self-conscious and seems to me to not be motivated by humility or an honest love of others. Abba Motius of the Desert Fathers says it this way, "For this is humility: to see yourself to be the same as the rest." The first is marked by the freedom of the Christian, the second is marked by its lack. The first can and will go anywhere, but will go there as a Christian (including as a Christian hermit) with all the commitments and differences that ALSO entails, the second is less about being present to and for others, and is more concerned with being indistinguishable or blending in --- self-conscious motives, both of them. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

In my town we have a small restaurant, a converted house, which is a favorite of everyone from every strata of our generally (but not universally) affluent society. On any given weekday morning one may find, especially at some of the larger tables which seat ten or more, the mayor sitting elbow to elbow with the guy who picks up her garbage, the single mother who needs government to pay better attention to her needs, the businessman who regularly leaves a $50 tip, the college student who eats there for free because the owner doesn't want her sick or starving, along with the owner of one of the local (and national) sport franchises, et al. Conversations are not strained, nor are they meant to presume on others. They are simply human. Everyone belongs, no one tries to "blend in." If the college student tried to dress up, or the mayor to dress down, or the sanitation worker to do something similar, etc, then something crucial and crucially honest to this place would have been lost due to self-consciousness and a sense of difference, whether of superiority or inferiority. Residents of our town don't go here to blend in; instead we go here to relate and to be ourselves in a diverse environment. This restaurant is a gift to the community, and it allows the kind of presence the Christian is supposed to cultivate I think. When I eat here (unfortunately, very rarely these days!) I simply am who I am as well --- both in my more fundamental solidarity with others as well as in what distinguishes me. I think this is really what the author of the letter to Diognetus was talking about.

I hope this helps.

The Call to Discipleship: Talking the Talk AND Walking the Walk

Written Reflection for the End of the Parish School Year based on John 21:15-19:

How many of you have ever done something wrong, or hurt someone in a way which made you feel like you would or could never be forgiven or trusted again? Let me give you an example of how this happened in the life of a Sister friend of mine. Mary was about 12 or 13 years old and her parents had asked her to watch her younger sister.

She had other things she might have preferred to be doing, but she said sure, and the two of them went out to play. While Mary's little sister was swinging on a swing Mary looked away for just a moment and, in just that tiny space of time, her sister fell off the swing and struck her head on the concrete. It seemed like there was a lot of blood, and she was clearly hurt in a way a band-aid alone wouldn't fix! Mary's parents came out when Mary called. They did not yell or scold, but neither was there time to talk. Instead they whisked M's sister away to the hospital leaving Mary home alone with her fears and thoughts. You can imagine what was going on inside her: "She's going to die! People who are hurt badly enough to go to the hospital die!!", "Will mom and dad ever forgive me? How can they ever trust me again?" "Do I love my Sister? How could I let something like this happen to someone I really love??" "If she dies, my life will be all over!"

I am sure that Peter is probably feeling and thinking some of these same things in today's Gospel. Remember that the last time we hear much about Peter in John's Gospel before this it is around the time of the Last Supper, and Jesus' following arrest, trial and execution. Always full of bluster, and never really in touch with his own weaknesses, Peter is protesting that he will never betray Jesus, that he will follow him anywhere; that he'll even die for him if necessary, and when soldiers step forward to arrest Jesus, it is Peter who rushes forward to lop the ear off of one of them! But once Jesus is taken away, Peter is a different guy altogether. He skulks around the temple precincts trying to see what is happening to Jesus, but when people ask him three separate times if he is Jesus' disciple, he denies it. And when Jesus is crucified, Peter is off hiding with most of the other disciples so he won't also be arrested and killed (only the beloved disciple remained with Jesus, Mary, and the women). Peter could talk the talk, but, when left to himself, when Jesus was gone, he wasn't strong or courageous enough to walk the walk.

So, although Jesus has appeared several times to the disciples, this is the first time John tells us that he and Peter will talk face to face. Imagine the questions and concerns roiling or boiling around inside Peter's heart! "What does he want? What will he say?" "Does he want to tell me how awful my failure was, and how disappointed in me he was/is?" Does he want to explain how unworthy I am to be his disciple and a leader in his Church?" Will he tell me to just forget it! Oh I hope he doesn't say just forget it --- that would hurt even worse. He knows I can't do that, and besides it would feel like he was dismissing me as a person! I really hope he doesn't do that!" "Does he know how much I really do love him?" "Will he forgive me? Can he ever trust me again???

And Jesus, who knows Peter better than Peter knows himself asks him three times, one for each denial, "Do you love me Peter?" And Peter answers, quieter, humbler now, "You know Lord, that I love you!" Jesus' questions are not a test in the usual way we use that word. The only right answer is the truth. These questions remind Peter of his denials and all the fear, self-centeredness, need for self-preservation and failure that drove them, but they also help to put him in touch with something which is deeper and truer, something which is more real than these. They help Peter to get in touch with his deeper self, the one God calls him to be, the one who is capable of generosity and empathy and compassion, and who really does love Jesus and others more than himself. Each time Peter answers from this deeper place, Jesus entrusts him with a charge or responsibility: "Feed my Lambs, Tend my lambs, Feed my Sheep!" He doesn't shame Peter. Neither does he treat his denials and failure as though they never happened. They were real and they mark him the same as Jesus' wounds mark his own hands, feet, and side, But Jesus empowers him to move beyond them. This is how Jesus forgives. This is how he creates a future for us.

My friend's parents did something very similar. When they returned home from the hospital with Mary's sister, stitched up and bandaged, they let Mary touch her, and kiss her. Then they asked her a couple of questions: "Did you do the best you could do?" Do you love your sister?" And Mary answered yes to both questions, but with the second one she added: "I thought I loved her but now, after all this, I know how much I REALLY do love her!!" Then her parents reminded her that they were going to need to go away in two more weekends, and they wondered if Mary would be okay to take care of her sister for them. Once again she answered yes, yes to her love, yes to her parents and sister, yes to the future.

Here at the end of the school year we should hear the same questions that Peter did. Do you love me?? Perhaps we have not been always been great friends. Maybe there have been times we have been thoughtless, or selfish, or insensitive to the needs of our friends. Perhaps we have not been the best classmates. Maybe we have bullied others or laughed at them because in some way they are different than we are. Maybe we formed exclusive cliques and shut others out, or otherwise acted or spoke at the expense of another's dignity. Perhaps we have not been the best sons and daughters and failed to listen to or respect our parents. But as we hear the same questions, so too should we hear the same commissioning Peter heard: Feed my Sheep! Jesus knows we are better than this; that deep down we are simply awesome, and so, as he did with Peter, he calls us all to grow into that --- and some of us he just plain calls to grow up --- to take care of the least and the weakest as he does us --- the least and the weakest.

At the end of the Gospel today Jesus tells Peter that when he was younger he could go anywhere he liked, but now that he is older, someone will gird or dress him and lead him where he would rather not go. Today, you sit here in your Summer clothes, all set to have a great vacation from school. Your teachers, your pastor, and all the parish staff all hope you will have a terrific time, full of fun and a different kind of learning. But come September, we will ask you to put your St P's uniforms back on, and leave your younger, less mature selves behind while you to step up to even greater challenges, even more responsibility, and show us your better, truer selves. We know you are capable of this. We trust that you are each capable of fulfilling Jesus' charge to "Feed my Lambs, Tend my Sheep. Feed my Sheep." We know that you will return to us ready and eager not only to talk the talk but to walk the walk of the community leaders and disciples of Christ you truly are.

On Penance and Penitential Living

[[Sr. Laurel, I see that you and other hermits often speak of living lives of prayer and penance. Can you explain more about what penance means to you: why we do it; what it's for; what it consists of. What are right and wrong attitudes toward penitential practices? I have read what you have said in several places about the meaning of suffering and of chronic illness. Is there a place within those circumstances where penance functions?]]

As usual, great questions. The question of penance, especially on inappropriate or false forms of penance has come up here before so please check some of the labels in the column to the right. Still, it has been some time since I have posted on this so let me reiterate some of it, and also some of what I have written in my own Rule. As you well note, diocesan hermits are indeed bound to a life of "assiduous prayer and penance" so one hopes they have a fair idea of what this term of Canon 603 means! I will make this a pretty general answer, so if it raises more specific questions you can get back to me with those.

Prayer and Penance are Linked

I think the first thing one must realize is that prayer and penance are intimately linked; they are related to one another in an integral and profound way. Penance functions to support and facilitate prayer, while prayer, and especially a life of prayer, requires penance if it is to be authentic and achieve depth or breadth in one's life. In other words, we undertake penance so that we may become people of prayer, and in fact, that we may become instances of prayer in our world. In my Rule I define penance as, "Any practice which assists in achieving, regularizing, integrating, deepening and extending our openness and responsiveness to God through the deprivation and death of the false self and attention to the genuine needs and growth of our true selves in Christ. While prayer corresponds, in part, to those deep moments of victory God achieves within me, and includes my grateful response, penance is that Christian and more extended form of disciplined "festivity" implicating that victory in the whole of life, and preparing for the fulfillment which is to be accomplished only with the coming of the Kingdom in fullness."

In the eremitical life, every hermit finds that solitude itself and all that entails is a primary form of penance --- even if temperamentally they are introverts. Solitude means not merely physical aloneness. It also means being alone WITH God and FOR others. Stricter separation from the world (i.e., from that which is resistant and antithetical to Christ), silence (both inner and outer), fidelity to the regularity and even the tedium of solitary life, and rejection of the distractions which surround or are available to most people all the time, are forms of penance. The inner work (battling with personal demons, falsehoods, compulsions, and distortions!) which silence and solitude lead to and demand is a form of penance, as is simplicity in all things. These are the most basic or foundational elements of the eremitical life which are penitential in and of themselves, and --- though this will be true in different ways and degrees --- I think they will be foundational in any disciplined spiritual life. Penance, after all is meant to assist in prayer, and in dying to self, so anything which contributes to these may be seen as penitential or forms of penance.

Thus too, I would include any forms of personal or inner work needed to deal with the false self we have developed throughout our lives (journaling, PRH -- a particular form of this work --- counseling (if needed), spiritual direction, etc) as part of a legitimate penitential life. I think this is true for anyone, hermit or non-hermit. For most people this would mean (to some extent certainly) turning off the TV, unplugging the phone and computer, committing to and maintaining a regular prayer life, creating an environment of simplicity and silence which contributes to listening to God in the depths of one's heart, and then submitting to spiritual direction or other forms of assistance which help in the accomplishment of the death of the false self and the coming to abundant life of the true self. It will mean, as part of creating and maintaining this environment of attentiveness and simplicity, some degree of fasting (or certainly a practice of mindful eating!), and so too, the disciplined use (or discriminating rejection) of the plethora of things the world offers us as fulfilling. All of these are essential to the eremitical life and I think they are required to some degree by any sound spiritual life, and all of these things may be considered penitential

The second thing I think we should understand and appreciate then is the way penance is linked with a way of life. For hermits, it is the life itself which is penitential. A hermit, for instance, does not merely build in or incorporate occasional, much less arbitrary penances any more than she merely builds in occasional silences or occasional solitude --- though she will add or intensify expressions of these elements from time to time as a way of contributing to an organic whole. Penitential living is a way of living a spiritually healthy life so the focus of everything one does and is is on living in Christ, not on "doing penances" per se. Because of this, many things we might not have considered penance or penitential really are such: maintaining regularity and balance in one's schedule and order in one's living space, being attentive to physical and emotional needs in an ongoing and thoroughgoing way, maintaining a disciplined and measured approach to work, recreation, relationships, etc, will be part of a truly penitential life.

Inauthentic Penance

Similarly, then, many things we might have thought to undertake as penances will not be authentically penitential not only because they are 1) arbitrary (which means they are not integral to one's OWN life of prayer), but 2) because they do not contribute to an authentically human life which is reverent, attentive, discerning, and ordered. Instead they may even contribute to or intensify the falsifications and distortions which are already part of our broken and alienated selves. It is this dimension which your question raises when you ask about proper and improper attitudes towards penance. We are not meant to be about hurting ourselves, playing the ascetic athlete, or buying into notions of penance which are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to control God and our relationship with God, exercises of pride, self-hatred, disdain for God's good creation, or sado-masochism. While our penance serves to underscore our frailty and complete dependence upon God, we are meant to grow as human beings through our penance; that is, we are meant to develop our capacities for discernment, reverence, compassion, humility, generosity, gratitude and selflessness through our ascetical undertakings. They, therefore should not narrow much less diminish us as human beings, nor contribute to qualities within us that are less than human.

Suffering, Chronic Illness, and Penance

Regarding suffering, chronic illness, and penance, yes, penance has a very real place in living with and through these, but it may look differently than many expect. In the main, living with and even through these realities applies all the things I have said up until now. For instance, fasting (or certainly attentive eating) when one has hypoglycemia or diabetes will look vastly different than when one is healthy. The same is true of anorexia and bulimia --- and these provide a really vivid example of the difference between authentic and inauthentic approaches to penance. Maintaining an ordered life and environment may be very difficult when one has an unpredictable neurological disorder. Chronic pain may require regular narcotic analgesia in order for the person to function well, much less to pray regularly and deeply and participate appropriately in the life of their faith community. A regular schedule of sleeping and rising, or of work, recreation, and exercise may be the most penitential thing someone suffering from clinical depression can do for themselves, especially when combined with regular medication and therapy. (For some sufferers of clinical depression, just getting out of bed each day may be a profoundly penitential reality!)

For any form of chronic illness or suffering, finding and implementing ways of combating self-pity, hopelessness, or a sense that life is not worth living can be central penitential practices. This might include any practice which puts the focus on others and the gift they are for us; it might mean cleaning the house regularly, doing laundry routinely, refusing to leave dishes sitting in the sink (or elsewhere), making our beds, getting out for walks, cultivating a hobby, working one day a week in a soup kitchen or hospital, getting to Mass more frequently, or volunteering to contact and assist people who are sicker than we are to whatever degree we are able, etc. It will also mean the inner work I mentioned above. When God is truly victorious in our lives we live fully. This does not mean lives of superfluity, but neither does it mean an austerity or enthrallment with pain which makes these rather than genuine living the focus of our efforts. Penance gives grace and God's future a chance in our lives in the present and that is the perspective I think we must cultivate no matter our circumstances.

Followup Questions on Friendship, Facebook, etc.

[[I just wanted to write to say a big thank you for your blog - a great addition to the sometime idiosyncratic and opinionated blogosphere. I have been thinking about friendship in this modern age and would be very interested in your take on the question. I read your posts on Friendship and have thought about them a little. My question is centered on how friendship has been redefined by the use of new media (Facebook, blogs, Twitter, etc) and how you as a hermit respond to these changes. People commonly speak about being "friends" on Facebook but one wonders how deep these relationships really are. (One also wonders if people can really have 5000 friends, the current limit of friends on Facebook.)

Allow me to rephrase with a question: should a Catholic/Christian be on Facebook? Thomas Merton wrote numerous letters while in the hermitage, would a modern Catholic/Christian log into Facebook and comment on Status Updates? Would some of the missionary saints be using new media today to proclaim the message of Jesus? I wonder how St Augustine would see the issue? Modern popes have highlighted some of the problems with the internet. Yet they have also called the faithful to be involved. Yet my question is centered on how - as a hermit - you see these things. And how you see the concept of modern friendship as a psychologist (which I think you are!?!).]]

Thanks so much for both your comments and your questions. First, though, I am not a psychologist. My field is Systematic Theology and I work regularly as a spiritual director. Formerly I was a hospital chaplain, and also worked as a phlebotomist and research assistant in neurosciences.

Facebook, Internet, and Christian Participation

Regarding your questions, I don't see why Christians shouldn't be on Facebook, but I believe they must be very cautious with how they use it (or let it "use" them!). It, like many forms of internet activity is completely capable of trivializing the concepts of friendship and genuine communication, often substituting superficial contact with unknown people for these. Likewise it can insidiously (or not so insidiously!) blur the very real line between a true honesty and openness which respects privacy and discretion, and a kind of careless "letting it all hang out" which seems to have no concept of genuine privacy. I am often appalled at how a phenomenon like Facebook erodes the capacity of folks to recognize the sacredness of friendship, or the distinction between openness, personal transparency, and complete indiscriminateness. Transparency is also actually a function of self-esteem, while indiscriminateness is just the opposite. The internet generally and Facebook more specifically can give us the illusion of being connected or participating in the rhythm and dynamics of life when this is really not true. Finally, social media can be used as a kind of narcotic to anesthetize ourselves from the pain of isolation, inauthenticity, or other difficulties when a major part of the answer is a degree of real solitude and the personal work that can occasion. As I think I mentioned in the earlier posts, what Facebook often offers is the notion of "friending" but, like cheap grace which is the fraudulent and empty version of the real thing, it is often a counterfeit version of "befriending."

As a hermit I generally see Facebook as a kind of noise. It is also something that epitomizes the way I regard "worldliness." It is an ambiguous reality which distorts (or can easily distort) what is truly sacred and can lead to Christ. But I think this means it challenges us to see and use it rightly for the gift it is and can be. I do belong to Facebook (my sister snagged me for it), but I rarely use it and almost never with good friends. It works especially well for allowing acquaintances to contact me on feastdays, birthdays, etc, and for me to do the same with them, or to contact people I have not seen since High School, for instance, but it is not a way I would nurture a friendship or proclaim the Gospel of Christ, etc. The same is true of other forms of internet interaction, message boards, chat rooms, etc.

In part this reticence on my part stems from experience. Back when I got the first computer I had with a modem, etc, I remember being really excited about the apparent opportunities the internet seemed to afford for teaching, sharing, etc, and I did find a few really special contacts who have, in time, become good friends. But generally, I found the faceless, anonymous character of the internet encourages people to behave at their worst, and contributes to acting out which includes outright cruelty, disrespect, bullying, dishonesty, fraud, and often creates a general environment which makes reverence or transparency very difficult if not impossible. One does (or should) not easily cast pearls before swine, and very often sharing online seems to be little more than this. Even this blog, which is limited in scope and readership and does not allow comments, sometimes receives responses via email or other blogs which make me question the prudence of continuing it --- or at least of posting/writing as transparently or autobiographically as seems appropriate given the topics I deal with.

However, there are excellent examples of the use of the internet to proclaim the Gospel, teach the faith, foster genuine community, and inspire friendship. One of the really stellar examples of this is the A Nun's Life website, which, in just the space of several years has grown from a simple blog to a full time ministry of two IHM Sisters of Monroe, Michigan encompassing podcasts, chat (and a community of followers), Q and A, guest speakers with genuine expertise and a down-to-earth approach to spirituality, etc. It represents one of the best examples I know of the use of the internet as something authentically edifying in the every sense of that term. Other religious and clergy, as well as a few diocesan hermits have blogs, and some of those I have seen are truly exemplary in Christian terms. I am positive there are others, but I am simply not knowledgeable enough of what's available to list them.

Granted, the internet is seductive in many ways, and sometimes a near occasion of sin. When I think of Thomas Merton alive in this time of almost instant access to everyone I can imagine his journals being filled with a struggle to balance the draw and capacity of this new medium with the cloistered character of his monastic and eremitical life. It would be a variation on the struggles that permeated his journals anyway of course, but I have no doubt he would have embraced it as a significant medium with great potential for good! Perhaps in some ways we are the better for the fact that publishing as he did required constraints the internet does not have. Had he written as the internet makes possible, we might have a vastly diluted and diffused body of his work. So, again, caution, restraint, and reverence for ourselves and those to whom we speak (as well as for Word or language itself) is essential in using the internet wisely or prudently and effectively. But, as any other thing the Christian (and even the hermit) approaches, we don't simply condemn or reject it. We must try hard to use it in the best way we can --- especially in a way which reflects our own genuine self-esteem in Christ and which contributes to the perfection of our world and the growth of genuine community.

Regarding Friendship

I don't know what more I can actually say about friendship that I have not said in other recent posts. It is true that there have been periods in the history of Christian spirituality when the value of personal friendships was devalued in the name of allowing Christ to be the one true friend. However, whenever Christology has adequately reflected and reflected upon the humanity of Christ and the texts in the NT that deal with relationships, the importance of personal friendships (and especially those in Christ) have come to the fore.

Human beings, as I have written here often, are communal realities. We are incomplete without God who, in part, constitutes a dimension of our very being. Not only does he dwell in our hearts, but his very breath enlivens and empowers us in a way which makes us truly human. Similarly, we are incomplete without others --- whom we are called to love and regard as part of the very same body of Christ we are part of (or are called to make up). Friendship, it seems to me, is one of the holiest realities we can know in our lives. Unfortunately, for that very reason, it is also one of the first things which is distorted and profaned as well. When sin distorts, fragments, alienates, and isolates, it is healthy relationships which are affected first after our own hearts. And so, our hunger for friendship becomes all the keener, but it also becomes distorted and tinged (or pervaded) by deficiency needs which makes our approach to others self-centered.

Our hunger (and also our God-given capacity) for friendship (or simply for connectedness) is something which phenomena like Facebook and the internet more generally both reflect, seek to provide a means to fulfill, and actually exploit and exacerbate. While these things CAN allow true communication, more often they substitute superficiality which does not truly satisfy and merely whets one's desire for more and deeper relatedness. It is a bit like being glutted with non-nutritious food when what one really wants are a few really nourishing bites. We suffer as people from lack of the real thing; we are dehumanized by it to some extent and left glutted but empty. Social media does some good things but it also contributes to this form of personal or social malnutrition. It also, unfortunately, trains or socializes us to accept the objectification, exploitation, and profanation of others as means to self-satisfaction. This can run the gamut from pornography, to the regular disrespect we see on message boards, to the simple counting of people as "notches" or numbers on our facebook "score sheet." It is astounding to me that anyone could read the "number of friends" tally that shows up there as something worthy of the reference to "friends."

Anyway, these are a few of my more critical thoughts regarding your questions. A more positive take on the internet (especially in regard to hermit life) is available in an earlier post. I will stop here or else I may never get this posted! Again, thanks for your comments and questions.

Questions on the Concert, Oakland Civic Orchestra, etc.

[[Sister Laurel, how was your concert? Will you be playing others? Also, you said this was an amateur orchestra. Are there any pro's [sic] playing in it?]]

Ah, thanks for asking. The concert was really excellent! It went better than we expected even and the audience was very appreciative even giving us a standing ovation. It is an amazing experience for an amateur musician to come away from six or seven rehearsals and a performance and feel like she has actually played a Beethoven Symphony with 45 other performers! It is one thing to struggle and muddle through it, and entirely another to actually play it! Granted, we did not take the fast movements (or the presto climaxing the last movement) at anywhere near the breakneck speed some do, but it was still just fine!

Since I am still excited from the performance, I should note that my earliest significant experience of both transcendence and community was the experience of playing in an orchestra. The degree of interdependence and personal responsibility to make things work for everyone, but also for the greater goal of performing a piece of music is completely exhilarating to me. There's hard work, incredible excitement, joy, disappointment (when there are the occasional inevitable train wrecks), and a real sense of awe, humility, and triumph at what has been accomplished in and through us when all goes well. Yesterday's concert was one of those really satisfying ones when you know everyone did their best and it was what it was supposed to be --- something very much greater than the sum of individual parts. We made MUSIC, and there is something unquestionably holy in that experience.

The orchestra is a completely amateur orchestra. Some of us have played occasionally with pro-am orchestras in the area, but generally we are made up of folks who have full time jobs in something other than music and come to a rehearsal once a week in the evenings. Teachers, attorneys, software developers, psychologists, pastors (or hermit nuns!), nurses, physicians, full time moms, and any number of other fields are represented. Some members are professionals in music somewhere (choral music, for instance), but play an instrument as a secondary interest. Most of us played instruments in school and many desired to play as professionals but were discouraged by the dearth of chairs available (winds especially have this problem), or an inability to play at a professional level. Some went on to teach music, get married, enter the convent, go to medical school, etc. Many of us studied something else in college and may have minored in music. Some, involved in music in other ways most of their lives, picked up the instruments they play with us only as adults. The basic story is always the same though: the desire to make music, to play, and especially to play "real" orchestral music (not just light classical or abridged and simplified works) never really left us and this is the answer: Community Orchestra.

The Oakland Civic Orchestra is really fortunate to have an excellent artistic director and conductor, Marty Stoddard, who does not shy away from playing the classical repertoire. When she auditioned for the "job" (it pays hardly anything!), a number of orchestra members thought she would make us work too hard. They wanted a Wednesday night out, but not a difficult rehearsal, much less commitments to practicing at home! Well, Marty won the audition anyway. Those members left us long ago and we have grown as an orchestra in the intervening years. Next season is our 20th year, and we intend to continue doing so. We now are joined sometimes by the Oakland Symphony Chorus and each season dedicate a portion of a set to a young musician who has taken second place in the Oakland East Bay Symphony Concerto Competition. The second place prize is a chance to play with us (rather than with the OEBS) --- usually the young person's first chance to rehearse and perform as a soloist with a real symphony orchestra. It is an experience which provides an element of musical education that can't be gotten practicing alone. Another set is usually devoted to contemporary music and this allows us to do the work of living composers. (Some preview these works with us.) Sometimes we will do a children's concert. Next season for instance, our first concert is the eve of Halloween so we will do the Sorcerer's Apprentice and some other "scary" stuff for that. (I should note it is also the eve of Harold Camping's revised prediction of the end of the world! He claims it will be quick though!)

This was the last concert of the season (there are ordinarily four from Fall through early Summer or late Spring) with time off during the Summer. This Summer some of the orchestra (not me though) will be playing in productions of Les Miserables, and on Sept 11, 2011 at 5:00pm we will, as a whole, be participating in what is being called a "Rolling Requiem." We will be doing Mozart's Requiem with the Oakland Symphony Chorus at Oakland's new Cathedral, Christ the Light. Other orchestras and choruses will be doing the same all over the country, so you might want to keep an eye open for that in your area.

Everyone Still Here?

Just a note, but do you suppose the fact that the word "Holy" is completely worn away from Mr Camping's Bible in the picture below is meaningful? Prophetic?


Well, it's 8pm here and personally, I am happy the world is still here. The Oakland Civic Orchestra has a concert tomorrow and along with a Mendelssohn Overture and Ravel's Pavane for a Dead Princess (which apparently has nothing to do with princesses, dead or otherwise), we are playing the Eroica by Beethoven. We've been practicing for weeks and finished our dress rehearsal at 3:00pm today --- right on time to be whisked away to heaven. Lots of traffic on the way home, but maybe we were in the wrong time zone for the prediction's given time. Of course sitting here now in my hermitage, darkness all around outside, maybe "the rapture" has taken place and all the good folks have been taken and here I am left behind! Now THAT would give a new meaning to eremitical solitude, wouldn't it? And assuming I have been left behind, what does that mean for my relationship with God --- or God's with me? Do I just treat it as non-existent? Has he turned his back on me? Left me completely alone??? Am I rejected? Condemned? Is my future simply a few months of misery as the world is assaulted by any number of scourges and woes followed by oblivion or hell? Hardly sounds like something the God of Jesus Christ would orchestrate does it?

Of course, I know I am not really alone. It seems that Harold Camping himself is alive and well about 15+ miles from here, as are his daughter and any number of his followers. Camping, by the way, said he was a bit bewildered by the failure of his prediction --- a prediction that had people selling everything they owned and driving to California to share in the terminal events with others who believed as they did. Camping's organization (right here in the Oakland area) has made and spent millions of dollars on this and now, well, I wonder if the explanation Camping will give will advert to more mathematical miscalculations or be an honest confession of the place of human hubris in the face of Divine inscrutability and Scriptural texts that cannot be read or mined for timetables and starcharts like a Farmer's Almanac.

The temptation to joke about this latest "prophecy" (which I am really trying to restrain) is tempered in part by my own sadness that such things actually happen and are given credence by those who supposedly believe in the same God Christ proclaimed. Even Christ said clearly that he did not know the hour or the day of the second coming and the day of judgment. In part it is also tempered by a sense that significant theological issues have been raised by Harold Camping's predictions. For now though, I need to practice a couple of passages in the Beethoven (a fugal passage which I thought I had down but blew this afternoon, and the finale which is simply WAY too fast for my sluggish nervous system!), then do some quiet prayer and get to Compline. There will be time (God willing) to think over the theological issues and reflect on why it is these predictions about the last days are always so credible to some --- and, along with belief in God, such complete nonsense to others. The truth is probably somewhere between these extremes. Personally, I am glad the OCO gets to play tomorrow's concert though. Amateur orchestra though we are, we've practiced hard for this last concert of the season and it should be a good one!

Hermits as Desert Wanderers and Dwellers: On Blurring the Line Between Being and Doing

[[Sister Laurel, . . . I think . . .what you are saying is that becoming a hermit (or becoming anything) means necessarily that you start out on a journey which you yourself do not understand completely - and you learn along the way where it is that you are going (by working on that rule of life and by living out an obscure calling as well as you can). It's the journey of Abraham, isn't it - on his way to a country he hasn't seen, called by a God who is a stranger, figuring it out as he goes, blundering and straightening out the blunders.

So, in a different framework, I would say this: that I have read a hundred books or more on prayer, but I will not ever learn to pray from a book. To learn to pray, I must pray. And the books may cast light on what works and doesn't work - but reading the books will not make me a prayer. And studying and learning about God will not put me in touch with God unless I stand still long enough for him to grasp me. Since [details omitted] this has been my experience: after so many years of seeking God and longing for God and wanting to know ABOUT God, I have been totally surprised to find that God has grasped me. . . So, as you explain that it is only in really living the hermit's life that you learn what it is and how to live it. No one can teach it to you. They can only help you to recognize the process you are living through. That is what you are saying, isn't it?]]

Hi there,
Many thanks for your comments. I cut them some but hope I did them justice. Yes, you mainly have what I am saying and your journeying metaphor is excellent. (One of the most important images central to eremitical life is that of pilgrimage or sojourn and I am going to try to build on that here.) Your example of the difference between reading about prayer and praying is also spot on. However, I am trying (or think I am trying) to say something more too. As you well affirm, in many ways one always only learns to live one's vocation by actually living it. But the distinction which is critical here hinges first on the solitary nature of the eremitical vocation, and then too on its actual lack of destination in worldly terms. In the first place, then, the hermit life is, by definition, a solitary life "with God alone" where both the "initiation into" and "formation as" is essentially solitary. These occur between the person and God in a different way and to a different degree than initiation into and formation in religious life generally does, for instance.

But there is another quality too which the image of journey brings out. As you say, Abraham's journey (or that of Moses, et al) was, indeed, one of wandering in the wilderness, and of a certain degree of blundering along. A person desiring to be a hermit --- to the extent she truly wants to be a HERMIT and not just a lone religious person with canonical standing with the right to wear funny garb --- is really saying she desires to wander in the wilderness, to blunder along -- just herself and God --- to whatever "destination" and via whatever route God chooses. She knows that the journey itself is the goal and she mainly trusts that she is right where God wills her to be. She is becoming precisely who God calls her to be in this because she is with him. It is in making the journey that she learns to trust more truly and deeply in the God who dwells with and within her. More, however, it is only this faithful journeying together that is the real "destination" to the extent there is one at all. All hermit candidates (myself included) claim to want to become desert dwellers (eremites), but we also tend to object when the means to being that very thing seems TO NOT MEAN moving according to well-fixed and developed routes with lots of oases, guides, and the occasional motel or resort to provide food, and stopping places from which to measure our progress and supposed distance from our ultimate goal.

We are so often all about "arriving." This can mean achieving some goal, some status, a fixed place in society or the Church, financial security, etc. It often means set stages --- smaller pieces of a well-mapped excursion or day-trip marked out as goals or check points within the larger project. In most things this perspective is prudent and necessary. But eremitical life is not about having arrived, or even seeking to "arrive" for that matter. It is about the journey and most specifically it is about sojourning with God into the vast expanses of our own hearts, and as we do, moving into the very heart of God as well. No one else can make this journey with or for us, nor can they chart a course or provide a map for us to follow. Some may accompany us at a distance (as friends and spiritual directors do), and mark the fruit of this journey so that we may see it more clearly ourselves. They may help us pause from time to time to reflect with someone else about where we have been and the direction in which God is apparently (or not so apparently!) drawing us at this point. They may occasionally be there so we may share some of the joys and hardships of the vocation. They will, from time to time both challenge and encourage us so we may celebrate with them what God does in and with us, and in all of this they are necessary and blessings from God. But the journey itself is, by definition, a solitary one undertaken by ourselves and God alone.

While all vocations to authentic humanity are ultimately solitary (even marriage!), they are also usually and more immediately ways we come to ourselves and to God through and in the company of others. However, with solitary eremitical life one is meant to live out this ultimate solitude --- in an immediately solitary and destinationless wandering-with-God. We are called to do this for the whole of our lives as the very essence of our identity and response to God's call. One could even say, therefore, that we are to become this journey --- that when we speak of hermits, we are speaking of persons who ARE a solitary covenant journey with God -- forged in and marked by the crucible of wilderness. Of course, all of this raises questions about canonical standing and the various ecclesial "hoops" one needs to jump through to discern and embrace this particular form of eremitical life, but those are for another post. Answering them with one's life, however, still requires making the transition from lone person to hermit and thus, living as a lay hermit for some time before petitioning or otherwise attempting to make vows under Canon 603 as a solitary hermit.

Followup Questions: On Formation as a Lay Hermit

[[Hi Sister Laurel, I understand why you insist one should live as a lay hermit for some time before approaching a diocese to be publicly professed as diocesan. I hear you saying Lay eremitical life serves as the usual formative and discernment framework for any call to [solitary] eremitical life. But how does one determine and get the formation necessary to live as a lay hermit? Is the diocese's advice you referred to, "Just go live in solitude; it's all you need?" really sound advice? Is it really all one needs or is this the diocese's way to shunt a person off and not take them seriously?]]

Great questions. Yes, you clearly heard what I have said recently and have written here in the past as well. Living as a lay hermit is the most common way to discover and discern the shape of a vocation to solitary eremitical life. It is therefore also the usual state against which one must weigh any possible call to diocesan eremitical life. The other main way is by entering a community or monastery and, over time, determining that despite being called to the consecrated state one requires more solitude than this context provides. Even if this is true and one has lived as a religious for 25 years or more, one is not yet a hermit. The essential truth is that hermits are formed in solitude. There really is no other way. Lay eremitical life is the usual way one is formed in the life. But within solitude what helps with formation?

Eremitical life involves prayer, penance, study, lectio divina, and manual and (for many of us) intellectual labor done within the context (and for the sake of) of the silence of solitude. Formation in the life then includes formation in all of these things. Work with one's spiritual director can assist with prayer (and in learning and discerning all the various forms of prayer to which one might be called), penance, as well as with lectio divina. The director will maintain the focus on God's own voice within our lives, but she will be sure we recognize this voice in all the ways it calls us to wholeness, as well as all the ways it summons us to more abundant life in Christ. This is really the heart of one's formative work since it is through prayer, lectio, and the resulting inner work these require, that we really become persons who listen to the Word of God and allow it to be our constant companion, counterpart, center, and challenge(r).

However, one will also read about these things and doing so will allow one to be taught by authors one will likely never meet otherwise. This reading does not replace prayer, penance, lectio, or the required inner work they call us to, of course, but it will support them. If one is going to be doing intellectual work (theological, psychological, historical, sociological, etc) one will need an academic grounding in whatever discipline one will want to pursue. This is meant to provide not advanced degrees (though it's fine if you can get them), but a strong background which supports continuing well-directed solitary reading, research, and reflection. If one is lucky one will find mentors within the field who will help direct one's reading and writing. All of this is formative --- not least in the self-discipline and inner directedness required to live the eremitical life with integrity --- and it is a formation which will continue as an ongoing need and responsibility for the rest of one's life.

There are a few pertinent areas a lay hermit will read regularly in including, the desert Fathers and Mothers, the history of eremitical life (including contemporary eremitical life), contemplative prayer, Scripture (including contemporary commentaries, books of homilies, etc), desert spirituality more generally, the evangelical counsels (important whether one lives these as a lay Christian or a vowed hermit), theology, monastic life -- its history and values, etc. Any specialized areas of interest, including those having to do with her work, will also be included in the hermit's bibliography. While these general areas of reading will apply to most serious hermits, the ways each one will specifically go within them -- the focus one will take at any given time -- is entirely up to what one determines one is called to. If one wants to take formal courses in monastic life under recognized specialists, these can be done online for very reasonable tuition. One should probably consider doing some work in theology in a Master catechist program, etc or online if one can. (Some dioceses require a Master Catechist's certificate for those aspiring to diocesan eremitical life just to be sure they have a minimum of theological grounding.) Meanwhile, any specialized areas of interest, including those having to do with her work, will also be included in the hermit's bibliography.

Your last questions regarding the diocese's response about "just living in solitude" are excellent and perceptive. Even so, while it is true that dioceses sometimes don't believe in or esteem eremitical life, have no intention of professing diocesan hermits under Canon 603, and sometimes use this line about "Just go(ing) and liv(ing) in solitude; it's all you need" as a way of shunting the person's petition aside, this is not, I don't think, the usual reason one hears this advice. Instead it is often given to those who have not lived as a hermit at all (merely living alone is not the same thing!), much less for any length of time, and who may tend to believe the diocese will make them into hermits by putting them through some formal formation program with recognizable stages and public recognition for those accomplishing those stages. In such cases the dioceses that use this line are really saying, "Go, live in solitude and see if solitude is what God is calling you to for the rest of your life. We cannot form you as a hermit; only God in solitude can do that, so if you feel called to the silence of solitude, go and live it out." This is advice the desert Abbas and Ammas would have also given, "Just dwell in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything."

So long as the diocese is not simply dismissing the person in this way, and is being honest with them, the advice is sound. So long as this advice includes the requirement of regular spiritual direction with a qualified person, and allows for followup appointments with someone in the chancery the advice is sound. So long as the time one is asked to wait for more formal consideration is not more than several years and is at least loosely (but really) supervised, then the advice is sound. Finally, so long as the diocese will engage in serious and formal discernment of the person's petition for profession under Canon 603 if they persevere in this way for several years, then yes, the advice is far more than just shunting the person aside. It reflects the Church's wisdom on how it is any person comes to know a call to eremitical life, namely by living it and trying to persevere in it with God's help.

[[When you say that formation takes place in solitude, does this preclude spiritual direction, mentoring and other forms of personal work?]]

Not at all. As I have already written it includes these things in significant measure. However, the work of spiritual direction mainly takes place apart from the meeting with one's director. One prepares for these meetings and follows up on them with the kind of writing, journaling, prayer, reflection, reading, etc that the meeting points up the need for. In one's struggles within solitude one comes into contact with all of the false, distorted, and inauthentic parts of oneself. One meets face to face those characteristics which come from woundedness, sin, etc, and require healing and conversion. While these things may require the assistance of directors, physicians, etc, the work remains mainly done in solitude where one battles things out alone with God as one's only immediate companion and support. Mentoring is similar. The one being mentored may write or otherwise talk to the mentor about difficulties she is having and the mentor may make suggestions on ways to approach these areas, but the doing of it is up to the one being mentored to accomplish in the silence of solitude.

As I have written recently, my own life was especially blessed with people who assisted me in working through the things I needed to work through, but they could not do this work for me. Certainly they could and did meet with me regularly (and in some instances still do!) but I would never have become a hermit, much less a diocesan hermit, without the capacity to internalize and process in solitude what those meetings raised or revealed --- both the divine and the human realities this involved! Some have the mistaken idea that obedience means mainly doing as one is told, but actually, it is an attitude towards reality which one cultivates --- an attitude of active and respectful listening and engagement where one meets and comes to terms with truth as well as coming to love its source and all those who reflect it in even the slightest way. Learning this kind of obedience requires assistance usually, even if the majority of the cultivating occurs in the silence of solitude.

I hope this helps!

Questions on When to Approach One's Diocese and Formation as a Lay Hermit

[[Dear Sister Laurel, I find it difficult to understand how this [process of becoming a diocesan hermit] works. [It is especially hard to understand since there is no process of formation spelled out and no guidelines on when to approach one's chancery, etc.] For instance, when Entering a monastery or convent, one is guided in their discernment in the period of time as a Postulant and continues with studies as a Novice. As a Canonical Diocesan Eremetic, you work by yourself for the 2 years or so then approach the Diocese. I have the fear that after 2 years and I approach the V.G. or Bishop, only to find out that I don't meet the requirements that may be in place or that I have done something all wrong, making this life as an Canonical Diocesan Eremetic unreachable. If I was younger, 2 years would not be a long time to wait. Now, time is certainly at a premium:) . . . Would it be feasible for you or myself to write my Diocese so they could implement some sort of recognition and acceptance for those who would be interested in living the life as a Canonical Diocesan Eremitic?]] (Sections marked in single brackets [] are clarifications, additions, or other redactions added for the purpose of posting here. Sister L)

I can understand your concerns and frustration. Unfortunately, living as a hermit (an eremite) is ordinarily necessary before one can effectively approach a diocese about such a thing. It is necessary so that one will be treated as a serious aspirant who has been discerning seriously already, and also so that one is not told to "simply go live in solitude; that is all that is necessary." Yes, it is risky (desert-dwelling always is) and one may indeed discover at the end of several years that 1) the diocese will not profess one no matter what at this point in time, or 2) that one has made a mistake and that eremitical life (lay and/or canonical) is not what one is called to, but living the life already is what every diocese I know of requires as a prerequisite to consideration for profession under Canon 603. Risky though it is, it makes complete sense because of the very nature of the vocation itself: individual, solitary (worked out between oneself and God), marginal, countercultural, independent though ecclesial, generally statusless, and rare. Canon 603 itself is not about making or forming hermits out of whole cloth or according to a particular mold, nor is it about creating a queue of hermit candidates, but of recognizing and consecrating those hermits that exist who require this canonical protection, structure, and responsibility for the complete and integral living out of their vocation. This particular discernment can take many years to be clear, and there is simply no formal process which can replace something which happens in its own time and in solitude. Because of this dioceses are not apt to change the way they approach the matter, and while vocations might be missed in the process, those which are recognized are far more apt to be authentic.

If one really believes she is called to canonical solitary eremitical life (under Canon 603), she will live this call out without canonical standing as a lay hermit for some time first. The only way to discern the vocation is to live it, and the only way to know whether one is called to Canon 603 profession/consecration, is to live as a lay hermit first. This, so far as I know, is the only way a person can really get her "ducks all in a row" so to speak, apart from originally entering religious or monastic life, being formed in that life, and then finding one requires greater solitude than that supplies. Even then, there is no guarantee a diocese will profess her or anyone else under canon 603. At that point the hermit may request canonical standing and be rebuffed (by this I mean one may be told the diocese is not ready to profess anyone under Canon 603, not that one does not have such a vocation). That can go on for quite some time (23 years 17, years, 10 years, etc, are all numbers that I have heard from diocesan hermits who waited a long time for consecration under Canon 603). On the other hand, the diocese might respond positively (or negatively) to one's petition right away. There is no two year period written into the canon anywhere even though that is a commonly used number to indicate the usual time to live something out before contacting the diocese. Even here it is a completely minimal guideline number, not a hard and fast rule. (In fact, Bishops I know of tend to require one live as a lay hermit for five years before revisiting the question of even temporary public profession.)

What is profoundly and historically true is that if God is calling one to eremitical life, one will embrace that life alone with God whether or not canonical approval is anywhere in one's future. She, for instance, will embrace it and risk never having such legal standing because that is what the desert Fathers and Mothers did, and what all solitary hermits before her have done. One will do it because one is called to maturity as an obedient person and, so, answers God's call to be with him in this way no matter where it leads or does not lead in terms of canonical standing. One will do it because its very anonymity and lack of standing prepares her for the paradoxical reality of eremitical life lived in terms of canonical responsibility and status. One will do it because it serves the Church and world, and because only those who have lived such service are in a position to teach the church about their vocation.

Canon 603 is designed to protect and nurture solitary eremitical life, but not really to cultivate it except in those who have already embraced the relative statuslessness of such a vocation. It is an interesting and difficult paradox: status (legal standing) for those who have discovered they do not really need status (social privilege) at all. When dioceses tell potential candidates they need to just go off and live in solitude (something that happens a lot really), or that they do not need to be professed under Canon 603 to be a hermit, etc, they can certainly be mistaken in individual cases, but at bottom of such advice or insistence is the recognition that Canon 603 will always be the rare and paradoxical way for hermits in the Catholic church to embrace eremitical statuslessness. It will always be a life formed and discerned in solitude with the initiative and discipline provided by God's own immediate call itself. Lay hermits will always be the more prevalent and normal form of the life, and lay eremitism will always the main way which precedes and illuminates one's discernment of a call to Canon 603 profession as well.

Again, my best advice is to work regularly with your director. You are not yet free to live a solitary life, but when you are, embrace it and discern whether you are called to this as more than a temporary and transitional reality. Consider making private vows with your director (or pastor) witnessing to assist you. Will your diocese accept you as a candidate for canonical eremitical profession if you do this? Not necessarily. There are no guarantees at all. However, if you are living the life, meet the requirements of the Canon (stricter separation from the world, silence of solitude, assiduous prayer and penance), have written a Rule of life reflecting your own lived experience of the life, demonstrate a personal understanding of the vows (from having lived their values) and the elements of the canon, and are canonically free from impediments to public profession and consecration (prior marriages with divorce sans annulment, for instance), there will be no reason for the diocese to suggest you have done something wrong, etc. They will ordinarily work with you at this point as they discern the character and reality of your vocation; they will look at your own personal maturity, the integrity demonstrated in embracing and living out this life without canonical standing, etc, and their eventual decision will be on the basis of whether you have demonstrated to them you have such a vocation and the capacity to live it out even apart from them. IF you can do this your chances of being accepted for canonical profession are very much better, but so too is your own ability to live this life for some time or the rest of your life even if the Church declines to profess and consecrate you under Canon 603.

The Guidebook on Eremitical Life from La Crosse was a good, if limited, guidebook for those who would eventually seek to become diocesan hermits (as well as for those who might profess them!). It covered the qualities needed by the person, the education (gotten by personal initiative), the requirements of the diocese (spiritual direction, self-sufficiency and maturity, temporary profession, etc.) and a number of other things. If you can get a copy of it, I would recommend it. It did not establish a postulancy, novitiate, or juniorate for hermit candidates, nor could it really have done so without giving the wrong message about the life and the wholly individual and solitary process of formation involved. Many dioceses have access to this guidebook and require SOME of the same things La Crosse did (my own borrowed from it, but not slavishly). Usually, however, dioceses turn to this guidebook only after they have a good candidate. In my experience dioceses don't usually know much about eremitical vocations (some few do) and one role of a serious candidate may well be to help educate them. Again, only one who has lived the life for some time will be able to do that.

In Memoriam, Lillanna Kopp, SFCC, Deceased 24, April, 2011

I was waiting to post on this until I got more information. Fortunately, The Oregonian put up this obituary just one week after Lillanna's death, along with a more recent photo than the ones I had. I knew Lillanna personally as the foundress of the Sisters For Christian Community. She was an amazing woman and I count myself fortunate to have known her.

SFCC (Sisters For Christian Community), Lillanna Kopp, 91, Nov. 25, 1919 April 24, 2011 Lillanna Kopp was born in Bozeman, Mont., the youngest child of John and Leila Shotwell Kopp. A 1937 graduate of Portland's Roosevelt High School, Lillanna later entered the Convent of the Sisters of Holy Names in Marylhurst, taking the name of Sister Mary Audrey with her vows. She went on to earn degrees in education and psychology from Marylhurst College and Seattle University respectively. She earned her doctorate degree in sociology from St. Louis University in 1960, where she was the first female recipient of a teaching fellowship from the previously all-male educational institution.

Lillanna went on to have a very successful career as both a teacher and a scholar. She taught at almost every level of schooling including St. Peter, Our Lady of the Lake, and The Madeleine School of the greater Portland area, and St. Mary's of Medford. In addition, she was the principal at The Christie School and the Job Corps director of Center Life at Tongue Point Women's Center. Lillanna also held teaching positions in sociology and anthropology at Webster College, Marylhurst College, the World Campus Afloat for Chapman College and Portland Community College. Her commitment to education was only surpassed by her commitment to social justice and religious life. In 1961, she served as a delegate to the General Assembly of the U.S. Commission on UNESCO, and in 1965, actively participated in the civil rights movement as one of the founding members of the Traveling Workshop in Inter-Group Relations sponsored by The National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice (NCCIJ). She went on to be named the Director of Research and Curriculum for the Education Department of the NCCIJ in 1968.

In that same year, she published two manuscripts, "The Myth of Race" and "The New Nuns: Collegial Christians." It is the title of the latter that best represents Lillanna's greatest passion and life work. Initially as co-editor of TRANS-SISTER, a grass-roots newsletter for American nuns, and later as founder of Sisters for Christian Community (SFCC), Lillanna was a leader in the movement to transform the private and public lives of American nuns to better serve our communities and the Church. Founded in her North Portland home in 1970, today the SFCC is an international organization with members on every continent across the globe, committed to religious life and service via self-determination and collegiality. Lillanna continued her work for new non-canonical communities for American nuns throughout her retirement at her shared Sunspot in Waldport.

In 1983, she published her final manuscript, a sociological analysis of women's religious communities, titled "Sudden Spring: 6th stage Sisters: Trends of Change in Catholic Sisterhoods," and became the president of the National Coalition of American Nuns. Lillanna died Easter Sunday. As a young woman, Lillanna was preceded in death by her brothers, John and Charles Kopp; and more recently by her sister, Mary Leila Kopp Wolf, with whom, over the last two decades of her life, she shared a home, garden, a large extended family and a nightly game of Rummikub. She is survived by nieces, Diane Wolf Wheeler of West Linn; Mary Jane Wolf Aman, Linda Wolf Meacham and Nancy Wolf John, all of Portland; and Cindy Wolf Wyllie of Aloha; as well as 13 great-nieces and nephews; and 13 great-great-nieces and nephews who share her love of family and community. Lillanna's family and friends would like to thank the staff of Assumption Village and Avamere of Beaverton for their generosity of spirit and care. A celebration of her life will be held at 10 a.m. Friday, May 13, 2011, at St. Anthony Catholic Church in Tigard. Please send memorial contributions to St. Vincent de Paul Tigard Conference, 9905 S.W. McKenzie St, Tigard, OR 97223.

On the Term "State(s) of Perfection"

On a list serve for those interested in Catholic eremitical life the concern about the danger of terms like "states of perfection" was raised. I want to try to explain the term, not least because Canon 603, the Church's response to Church Fathers at Vatican II, established diocesan eremitical life as a "state of perfection" which has a unique sign value to the whole Church. The term is so widely misunderstood that it has led to all kinds of destructive tendencies in thinking about vocations --- not least, the notion that some vocations are "better" than others! (This attitude, unfortunately shows up at all levels of the Church.) It has also, therefore, led to simply rejecting the meaning and import behind the actual term, rather than to attempts to clarify its meaning and embrace this accurately.

State of perfection as we are speaking of the term (e.g., eremitical life or other forms of consecrated life as "state(s) of perfection") is not the same as being (subjectively) perfect. Even so, the term is a helpful one which says something significant about certain vocations in the Church. We need to preserve the notion of states, I think --- i.e., stable ways of living the mystery of the Church --- since (perpetual) profession and consecration, as well as marriage, baptism, etc, establish persons in a stable state (status) of life which is a gift to the church via the grace of God. (Note that status or state does not mean higher and lower; it is not a comparative term.) The term "state of perfection" has been especially problematical, however, and yes, the danger of misunderstanding is huge and of significant consequence. Again, however, it does not mean that the person established in this state of life is more perfect than those who are not so established, but that the way chosen is a more perfect MEANS of achieving the goal of witnessing to the poor, chaste, and obedient Christ. Since this is true, this state of life can therefore witness to the values of poverty, chastity, obedience, in a more effective and edifying way than some other states will necessarily do. This witness serves to call all Christians to embody these values and the shared and universal goal to which they point. Persons in other states of life are challenged by and benefit from this witness. The entire Church does.

Again, this does not mean one's own discipleship of Jesus (which is not the same thing as a state of life) is necessarily better than another person's if one is vowed/consecrated, nor especially that discipleship in married life (for instance) is defective compared to that of religious life. Of course not! It does mean that mirroring the poverty, chastity, and obedience of Christ is something this (consecrated) state of life makes more truly or radically possible and more clearly visible because the entire life is structured through and around these values. Married life will embody these values, but not to the same degree or extent --- not, that is, in the radical way religious or consecrated life does, because, at the very least, one can neither have nor raise children well in the same celibate, poor, or essentially insecure situation signaled by religious or eremitical profession and consecration. I would agree we absolutely must avoid characterizing the consecrated life as a better way of life, or otherwise buying into competitive mindsets (x is "higher" than y, etc), but I understand why it is characterized as a state of perfection. If Christ had been married and raised children, we would no doubt be calling marriage a "state of perfection," not because the married couple is perfect or in a subjective state of perfection, but because marriage as a state of life would then be a more perfect MEANS to mirroring Christ's own life than celibacy would be. In fact, it would witness to values or realities consecrated celibacy (celibate love) could not witness to --- values or realities like sexual or married love, parenting, etc.

Now, it may be that the term "state of perfection" has been misunderstood and misused for so long and so thoroughly it cannot be rehabilitated, but that is another question. (I do acknowledge that it might not be salvageable; it certainly almost invariably causes misunderstanding and always requires explanation --- even amongst those who belong to states of perfection. However, I sincerely believe we must at least try to truly understand it before deciding this!) Certainly it is destructive if misunderstood, but helpful if explained and understood accurately. My own question, the one I use to help explain the meaning of the term "states of perfection" is, "Which states of life most perfectly point to the poor, chaste, and obedient Christ in a way which challenges everyone to embrace these values in some way and to some degree in their own discipleship?" Given this question, I think the answer is "those states of life which the Church has, for good or ill, therefore termed 'states of perfection.'"

Thomas called Didymus: What's his Doubt Really About?

Today's Gospel focuses on the appearances of Jesus to the disciples, and one of the lessons one should draw from these stories is that we are indeed dealing with bodily resurrection, but therefore, with a kind of bodiliness which transcends the corporeality we know here and now. It is very clear that Jesus' presence among his disciples is not simply a spiritual one, in other words, and that part of Christian hope is the hope that we as embodied persons will come to perfection beyond the limits of death. It is not just our souls which are meant to be part of the new heaven and earth, but our whole selves, body and soul.

The scenario with Thomas continues this theme, but is contextualized in a way which leads homilists to focus on the whole dynamic of faith with seeing, and faith despite not having seen. It also makes doubt the same as unbelief and plays these off against faith, as though faith cannot also be served by doubt. But doubt and unbelief are decidedly NOT the same things. We rarely see Thomas as the one whose doubt SERVES true faith, and yet, that is what today's Gospel is about. Meanwhile, Thomas also tends to get a bad rap as the one who was separated from the community and doubted what he had not seen with his own eyes. The corollary here is that Thomas will not simply listen to his brother and sister disciples and believe that the Lord has appeared to or visited them. But I think there is something far more significant going on in Thomas' proclamation that unless he sees the wounds inflicted on Jesus in the crucifixion, and even puts his fingers in the very nail holes, he will not believe.

What Thomas, I think, wants to make very clear is that we Christians believe in a crucified Christ, and that the resurrection was God's act of validation of Jesus as scandalously and ignominiously Crucified. The resurrection, I think Thomas knows on some level anyway, insofar as it really occurred, does not nullify what was achieved on the cross. Instead it renders permanently valid what was revealed (manifest and made real) there. In other words, Thomas knows if the resurrection is really God's validation of Jesus' life and establishes him as God's Christ, the Lord he will meet is the one permanently established and marked as the crucified One. The crucifixion was not some great misunderstanding which could be wiped away by resurrection. Instead it was an integral part of the revelation of the nature of truly human and truly divine existence. Whether it is the Divine life, authentic human existence, or sinful human life --- all are marked in one way or another by the signs of Jesus' cross. For instance, ours is a God who has journeyed to the very darkest, godless places or realms human sin produces, and has become Lord of even those places. He does not disdain them even now but is marked by them and will journey with us there --- whether we are open to him doing so or not --- because Jesus has implicated God there and marked him with the wounds of an exhaustive kenosis.

Another piece of this is that Jesus is, as Paul tells us, the end of the Law and it was Law that crucified him. The nail holes and wounds in Jesus' side and head -- indeed every laceration which marked him -- are a sign of legal execution -- both in terms of Jewish and Roman law. We cannot forget this, and Thomas' insistence that he really be dealing with the Crucified One reminds us vividly of this fact as well. The Jewish and Roman leaders did not crucify Jesus because they misunderstood him, but because they understood all-too-clearly both Jesus and the immense power he wielded in his weakness and poverty. They understood that he could turn the values of this world, its notions of power, authority, etc, on their heads. They knew that he could foment profound revolution (religious and otherwise) wherever he had followers. They chose to crucify him not only to put an end to his life, but to demonstrate he was a fraud who could not possibly have come from God; they chose to crucify him to terrify those who might follow him into all the places discipleship might really lead them --- especially those places of human power and influence associated with religion and politics. The marks of the cross are a judgment (krisis) on this whole reality.

There are many gods and even manifestations of the real God available to us today, and so there were to Thomas and his brethren in those first days and weeks following the crucifixion of Jesus. When Thomas made his declaration about what he would and would not believe, none of these were crucified Gods or would be worthy of being believed in if they were associated with such shame and godlessness. Thomas knew how very easy it would be for his brother and sister disciples to latch onto one of these, or even to fall back on entirely traditional notions in reaction to the terribly devastating disappointment of Jesus' crucifixion. He knew, I think, how easy it might be to call the crucifixion and all it symbolized a terrible misunderstanding which God simply reversed or wiped away with the resurrection -- a distasteful chapter on which God has simply turned the page. Thomas knew that false prophets showed up all the time. He knew that a God who is distant and all-powerful is much easier to believe in (and follow) than one who walks with us even in our sinfulness or who empties himself to become subject to the powers of sin and death, especially in the awful scandal and ignominy of the cross --- and who expects us to do essentially the same.

In other words, Thomas' doubt may have had less to do with the FACT of a resurrection, than it had to do with his concern that the disciples, in their desperation, guilt, and the immense social pressure they faced, had truly met and clung to the real Lord, the crucified One. In this way their own discipleship will come to be marked by the signs of the cross as they preach, suffer, and serve in the name (and so, in the paradoxical power) of THIS Lord and no other. Only he could inspire them; only he could sustain them; only he could accompany them wherever true discipleship led them.

Paul said, "I want to know Christ crucified and only Christ crucified" because only this Christ had transformed sinful, godless reality with his presence, only this Christ had redeemed even the realms of sin and death by remaining open to God even within these realities. Only this Christ would journey with us to the unexpected and unacceptable places, and in fact, only he would meet us there with the promise and presence of a God who would bring life out of them. Thomas, I believe, knew precisely what Paul would soon proclaim himself, and it is this, I think, which stands behind his insistence to see the wounds and put his fingers in the very nail holes. He wanted to be sure his brethren were putting their faith in the crucified One, the one who turned everything upside down and relativized every other picture of God we might believe in. He became the great doubter because of this, but I suspect instead, he was the most astute theologian among the original Apostles. He, like Paul, wanted to know Christ Crucified and ONLY Christ Crucified.

We should not trivialize Thomas' witness by transforming him into a run of the mill empiricist and doubter!! Instead we should imitate his insistence: we are called upon to be followers of the Crucified God, and no other. Every version of God we meet should be closely examined for nail holes, and the lance wound. Only then do we know this IS the God proclaimed in the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, the only one worthy of being followed even into the darkest reaches of human sin and death, the only One who meets us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place, the only one who loves us with an eternal love from which nothing can separate us.